The woman arrested for murdering her stillborn baby ...

[DyedNTheWoolDemocrat]

I cannot believe my ears ... On the news I just now heard that she has also been charged, or at least has been nailed, for trying to SELL the other boy that was born for $5000.

WTF?? I mean, what the fucking hell?

Somebody pinch me!

[slinkerwink]

1. she was giving the baby up for adoption

and yes, they do pay the birth mother for that.

[DyedNTheWoolDemocrat]

2. Then why is she doing that instead of a lawyer?

Why was this just reported on the news the way it was?

[ulysses]

4. don't know that "pay" is the right word...

It's certainly not uncommon for adoptive parents to help birthmothers out financially if needed, but it has to be done in particular ways or it jeopardizes the whole thing. A straight "cash-for-baby" deal would, I suspect, be very much skirting the law in any case.

[DyedNTheWoolDemocrat]

5. Did she do this pregnancy for the purpose of adoption?

[veganwitch]

74. we dont know that, and neither do you

to assume is extremely presumptive, biased, and sick.

while she may have considered adoption once she was pregnant, there is no way to know that she got pregnant for the sole purpose of "selling" her offspring.

[Samurai_Writer]

40. WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!

Birthmothers do NOT get ANY money for surrending their children for adoption. The adoption is done through an adoption agency or a lawyer. The potential adopters MAY pay for the birthmother's medical bills or other living expenses while she is pregnant, if there is an agreement beforehand. But many do not, the birthmother is usually using her own insurance or medicare/medicaid for her medical expenses.

This issue really pisses me off as a birthmother. The stereotype of some greedy, selfish, heartless, uneducated, poor woman who is just willing to 'sell' her baby is blatantly false. Surrendering a child for adoption is THE hardest thing a woman will ever go through, excluding the death of a child. There is no closure, no societal or family support for a grieving birthmother for an experience that will affect the rest of her life.

http://home.att.net/~judy.kelly/thesis.htm
http://www.txcare.org/stats/phillips/davidson.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2991/marybb.html

[DuctapeFatwa]

3. I wondered if there were some disappointed adoptive parents behind

this. Not to minimize or question Utah's zeal for the principle of government control of women's bodies, but private adoptions aren't cheap.

[slinkerwink]

7. I had heard reports of the adoptive parents, and they might have

been the ones who urged to press the charges on the birth mother.

[DyedNTheWoolDemocrat]

8. Oh if that's the case then this case is getting worse by the minute

So she didn't have a vested interest, per se, in seeing that both babies were born alive.

Oh the case just reeks of tragedy. I think the pic of the woman shows she has some problems - that is an eerie sight to see. She is troubled.

This whole case is troubled.

[LeahMira]

34. Some people think that if they pay money it gives them "rights"...

I wondered if there were some disappointed adoptive parents behind

Problem is that birthmothers have to sometimes sign away their infants before the infants are born, since they receive some assistance before the infant is born.

IMO, the mother is the mother. It's her body and her infant. No one should be asked to sign away the right to parent a child before the child is born.

[Joanne98]

6. Her mug shot is terrible

It looks like they dragged her out of the hospital right after birth.

[DyedNTheWoolDemocrat]

9. When was that taken?

[camero]

12. Who does look good in a mug shot?

I wouldn't exactly say people are happy to go to jail. It's not like thier off to see the wizard or something.

In any case, this case reeks. Are women supposed to just do the gov'ts prescribed method of birth or risk jail?

[BiggJawn]

19. That woman who tried passing the Mega-buck bill...

She was actually SMILING for HER Mugshot!

[camero]

21. Now she looks mentally ill

[Bunny]

17. Isn't that exactly what they did?

Dragged her out of the hospital immediately after the birth? I've had two kids, and in the immediate aftermath of both births, but especially the first one, any photos taken of me would have been extremely unflattering.

But no matter, don't let the poor woman recover for even one minute. Nope, just haul her away. She's bad bad bad.

That's how it goes - it's morning in Bush's Amerika.

[veganwitch]

37. yep. the day after a c-section

i dont know how the hospital even released her. there is a (practically) mandatory 48-hour stay after a c-section

[diamondsoul]

10. Is this the same one who refused a c-section?

That whole case infuriates me as a woman and as a mother!

FTR, if it's the same case, I stand 100% behind the woman.

[DyedNTheWoolDemocrat]

14. It's the same case

[polycommie]

11. this is unbelievable

some people are just plain sick...

[procopia]

13. She may be mentally ill

That was suggested by her attorney in a news story I read.

[DyedNTheWoolDemocrat]

15. I hope to Christ she is, because this case is hard to justify otherwise

This is not a case I would want to defend women's right over. It is pitiful and a case for murder could be justified by reasonable people based on her statements.

[Bridget Burke]

18. No, a case for murder could not be justified.

She has very serious mental problems.

Oh, and where's the father?

[DyedNTheWoolDemocrat]

22. having mental problems does not preclude murder. it may explain

why she chose to murder the child, but it doesn't make it any less murder.

I do not doubt that this woman may be menatally ill. i think it is likely, as a matter of fact.

[Walt Starr]

25. DONATE YOUR KIDNEY RIGHT NOW OR YOU ARE A MURDERER!!!!!!

Somebody will definitely die if you do not donate your kidney right now.

Also, somebody will also die if you do not donate half of your liver.

On top of that, somebody will die if you do not have an operation to donate some bone marrow.

OOPS! Too late, you;re a murder three times over and the day has just begun.

Same premise, different medical procedures.

[kiahzero]

36. Logic doesn't work for some people

I'm starting to think that people who believe that women are incubators for men and other incubators cannot be reasoned with. What about you?

[BiggJawn]

52. She murdered the child?

Thank You VERY much, "Mr. Judge, Jury AND Executioner".

My understanding is that she refused a medical procedure, as is her RIGHT as an adult. If she had consented to the procedure and died while delivering 2 live babies, would those children be charged with murder? After all, they killed their mom in the act of being born.

Now if you want to argue for the "Rights" of the Fetus, bring it on, You won't change my mind, but I'm interested in what you have to say anyway.

This case is SO wrong on SO many levels. How many counts of murder am I guilty of, given the number of orgasms in my life that didn't produce a child? Remember-"Every Sperm is Sacred".

[Bunny]

20. Really?

Do you believe people can be made to have major operations against their will?

What about when your sister needs a kidney to live? Can the government force you to donate yours, against your will? What if it's the only way to save your sister's life? Can you be FORCED to undergo major surgery, give up an organ, even? And jailed for homicide if you refuse?

If you can answer yes to that, then you scare me.

[DyedNTheWoolDemocrat]

23. She was clearly more responsible for a child she was gestating

than that of another person she has no personal responsibility for.

At a certain point even a pro-choice advocate must agree that there is a life at stake within weeks or days of delivery, and this is clearly a case in which a life could have and should have been saved.

I hope I do scare you. I will not advocate pro-choice at the expense of murder just for the sake of justifying this one poorly chosen case of pro-choice gone bad or just for the sake of always siding with the woman.

This baby did not need to die and there is every reason he could have and should have lived if some simple medical advice had been heeded numerous times within 2 weeks before he died.

Mental illness might be the reason, but it's not a good excuse to justify it. This convinces me there should be safeguards in place to ensure a mentally ill person cannot refuse reasonable medical care without reasonable intervention.

[Walt Starr]

26. Donate your kidney or you're a murderer

You support state forced surgery.

That's the sickest proposition of all!

[DyedNTheWoolDemocrat]

29. I would hardly boil 2 lives down to simply surgery

that is the difference that we are having and that I feel the law will differentiate.

You cannot dismiss 2 babies, 2 human lives, as just surgery. At some point they do have rights, and this was clearly a case where they BOTH did.

[Walt Starr]

45. So your answer, force somebody to allow a knife to be stuck in them

That's sicker than what this woman did, IMO.

I will never support state forced surgery. That's what Hitler did.

[oldcoot]

58. What is the difference?

Donating a kidney or any organ could save a human life.

[diamondsoul]

78. Their rights as long

as they reside in that woman's body cannot over-ride hers. Period.

Does it bother me? Hell yes! I'm a mother twice, and would have gladly been 5 times over if nature hadn't taken a different course for me. Yeah, it bothers me, but not nearly as much as someone telling me she has to risk death to birth them.

[kiahzero]

27. MMM.... always fun to see authoritarian impulses here at DU

Forced surgery is blatantly unconstitutional, as it violates the right to privacy implied in the First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. You could also argue it violated the Fourth Amendment if anything was removed from the body - unreasonable search and seizure.

[Bunny]

28. I don't agree with your premise that she was "clearly more

responsible for a child she was gestating". I don't agree with you at all, and yes you do scare me. Are you a woman? Do you have any understanding of the autonomy of one's person? What if your minor child needed one of your kidneys? Are you responsible for that child? Can you be FORCED to give up a kidney for the child? FORCED at the point of murder charges should you refuse?

I believe this woman has severe mental illness, but even then you cannot force her to undergo medical treatment that could endanger her life. Are you really advocating forcing someone to undergo major, risky surgery, from which people still die, in order to save someone else's life? Can you really mean that?

Look, I've given birth to two beautiful children. I would have moved heaven and earth to see them safely born, even at the risk of grave injury to myself. I suspect most NORMAL mothers would. But having the government step in and FORCE me to undergo life-threatening surgery, which could cause me to die, is beyond the scope of personal freedom that we allegedly still enjoy in this country.

This has nothing to do with pro-choice at all, and I suspect you have your own agenda.

[DyedNTheWoolDemocrat]

30. I am pro-choice, if that is what you mean by my agenda

I am a woman who has delivered children.

No, I don't believe I should be forced to deliver my kidney to one of my children, but of course, I would do so in a heartbeat.

I do believe this woman has a mental illness. I don't believe that should play any part in deciding whether or not this child was murdered or not. It only goes so far as to her culpability and mental capacity in participating in that murder.

This child was a fully formed and viable child weeks before he was born, and was in distress long before he was delivered stillborn. I think that is egregious neglect. If that child had been delivered and such neglect had taken place there would be no question about this. I see no difference between inside or outside the womb at that point of viability.

I'm willing to wait and see how this plays out. I am pro-choice ALL THE WAY and this is not a case I choose to defend.

This is NOT why I am pro-choice to defend cases like this. It's egregious and highly offensive. She is mentally ill for God's sakes! And I can see the whole cause for womens rights and pro-choice going down the shitter for a case like this.

[kiahzero]

31. The government cannot compel surgery, period

There is no debate. The government does not have the power to force citizens to undergo invasive surgery. Any attempt to do so is blatantly unconstitutional.

You may argue that morally or ethically, the woman should have undergone the operation, but that is not the issue at hand. The issue is whether a woman can be prosecuted for executing her right of informed consent.

[DyedNTheWoolDemocrat]

35. But choosing to murder a child for the sake of informed consent

for the sake of exercising consent is well beyond what I was ever prepared to defend in this pro-choice battle.

And, c'mon! She was not exercising informed consent! From all indications, she is just plain fucking mentally ill and isn't responsible for her choices or actions she has taken in this situation.

This is a just plain tragic anomaly to pro-choice. And not about "choice" at all.

[kiahzero]

41. It wasn't "murder"

She choose to deliver the children in a different way. And that's her choice - not mine, not yours, not her doctor's, and certainly not the government's.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1229406

Should the government be charged with murder in the case of Angela Carder, since she was brutally cut open on the mandate of the government, to protect a fetus that died two days after the operation? Thanks to policies like the one you are advocating, Agenla Carder is dead. Will you be turning yourself into the local police for murder?

[Bunny]

42. Why in God's name are you choosing to define this as

"defend in this pro-choice battle"?

As many posters have pointed out, this has NOTHING to do with pro-choice, as in the context of abortion.

This has EVERYTHING to do with personal freedom and autonomy, and the right to privacy. And the right to refuse life threatening medical procedures. And the right to keep the government from prosecuting you for exercising your constitutional rights (for as long as we still have them).

No one who is attempting to defend this woman is arguing that it's a "pro-choice" defense. You are the only one doing this, and you continue to attempt to define the debate in those terms.

Because of this, I do not think you'll be able to let go of that and look at the larger argument being made by me and others. So continue to frame it your way, if that's what you need to do.

[DyedNTheWoolDemocrat]

51. I'm willing to consider it outside of that frame

thank you for pointing it out.

I thought that was what this argument was about.

I'll go back and re-read this thread with that in mind ...

I will need a few minutes to readjust my brain!

Gimme some time to readjust here ...

[veganwitch]

65. then why was there no review board

and a guardian given to her?

there are more people involved in this case, yet it is the solely the woman getting slapped with the penalty.

[FlaGranny]

33. This case has absolutely nothing to do with pro choice

or pro life. The case does not need to be argued or defended on a choice basis. This is simply the state saying you "must" have surgery if it will save another life, or two lives, or even more lives.

[lastliberalintexas]

55. Thank you!

Not an abortion issue at all. And it isn't even a case of the gov't forcing an individual to have surgery to save another life- it is the gov't forcing an individual to have a surgery which MAY save the potential life or lives of the fetuses. After all, no one actually *knows* that the C-section would have produced different results than the vaginal delivery.

As someone who is currently 8 and 1/2 months pregnant, it is appalling to me to know that there are people who feel they know better than I what choices I should make about my pregnancy, delivery and health.

[veganwitch]

63. im also currently pregnant

only 13 weeks and this case is pissing me off to NO END!

and yes, there are large mass of the gestational gestapo on this board.

[Mandate My Ass]

66. gestational gestapo

that is the most excellent term I think I've seen in all my time on DU and that's saying something. There seems to be an opinion floating around here that if you're not pro-forced surgery, you're "anti-baby."

Gee, where have I heard that kind of convoluted reasoning before? :eyes:


p.s. congrats on your pregnancy. I hope you have a blissful pregnancy and a healthy baby.

:toast:

[LeahMira]

47. But... what about the woman's right?

At a certain point even a pro-choice advocate must agree that there is a life at stake within weeks or days of delivery, and this is clearly a case in which a life could have and should have been saved.


Does a woman have the right to refuse surgery?

In this case if, as has been mentioned, she planned to place the infant(s) for adoption and had received some financial assistance from the prospective adoptive parents, does that fact mean that she is required to have two healthy infants to turn over to those would-be parents even if that means that she would submit to surgery that she does not want to have?

[DyedNTheWoolDemocrat]

53. Oh yuk. I only had an inkling she was doing this for monetary benefit

before this. Now you have confirmed it.

Okay. "sigh"

I am not allowed to consider this a case of "pro-choice", or not. I think I understand that now.

It doesn't help my frame of mind that she is not only probably mentally ill, but has been receiving monetary gain and assistance for twins she is now NOT obligated to deliver or care for in any meaningful way before or after delivery.

If she is inconvenienced in any way, she's been paid her money, their lives are a secondary concern to her money and convenience. I get it now. This is fucking sicker that I thought it was.

She may consider the money as the ONLY consideration. Yes. I reluctantly agree.

"sigh"

I will reluctantly concede that she has the right to refuse surgery to deliver these twins, even knowing that refusing to do so will result in the danger of death to one or both of said twins.

okay you guys win. I agree with you.

Now if you will excuse me I think I'm going to have to go puke.

Did anyone in this thread give a shit for this dead kid?

I didn't think so

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[Bunny]

57. Just how did LeahMira's post "confirm" to you that there was

a monetary rationale for the mother's actions? I saw no link in that post at all, much less a link to a credible source. It was mere speculation, but I guess that constitutes "confirmation" to you. If this is how you arrive at opinions and conclusions, you must spend a lot of time :puke:ing.

To your credit, you have quit framing it as a pro-choice issue. Good. Now perhaps you can extend yourself and wait until there is more concrete evidence presented as to mental health, possible ulterior motives, etc. Innocent until proven guilty, at least for now.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that there isn't one poster on this thread who doesn't feel sympathy for the stillborn baby. As you said, this whole thing is a tragedy, in so many ways.

[DyedNTheWoolDemocrat]

68. The part of the previous post that confirmed a monetary rationale

to me was

"she planned to place the infant(s) for adoption and had received some financial assistance from the prospective adoptive parents"

Really, I may be slow and difficult sometimes but I'm not an idiot.

I promise you I'm not just pulling these things out of my ass. I am reading them at the same time you are. I didn't know this woman was having these kids just to sell them until I read it here AFTER I read it here and AFTER I got an inkling that caused me to start this thread.

I do understand now that is not a pro-choice issue, and I thanked you for pointing it out.

As far as waiting for more evidence, I hope to Christ mental illness CAN be proved, because it that is the only possible defense I can see for this woman in this case of murder. Yes, I do see this as a case of murder, as a PRO-CHOICE woman who has delivered babies, and who believes it a viable choice to refuse a kidney to one of them if it meant the difference between life and death. (Of course I would give up a kidney, arm, leg, eye, ear, anything for one of my children, though, in a heartbeat)

How the mental health of this woman is established is beside the point to me. Proving that she is mentally ill does not prove to me that the baby was not murdered. It just proves to me that the baby was murdered by a mentally ill woman.

[Bunny]

71. But do you see that those words do not constitute confirmation?

There's been no link to any confirmation, by a reliable source, that she had a monetary motive. You are basing your conclusion on something that has not yet been demonstrated as factual.

If you'll recall, when this story originally broke, it was said that she refused the C-section because she didn't want a big scar. It was a "vanity" thing. I believe that has now been discarded. One theory didn't float, so here comes another one.

Until all the facts and circumstances are in, you simply cannot pass judgement on this woman, call her a murderer, etc. You just don't have enough knowledge right now to make that call.

Look, you and I are both women who have birthed babies. We'd probably both consider ourselves to be pretty mainstream. In our minds it is incomprehensible that a mother wouldn't do EVERYTHING humanly possible to insure the safe birth of her child, because that it what WE would do. We'd gladly give our kids any organ they needed if it meant saving their lives. We see this issue through the prism of our own values and experiences.

But not everyone is like us. Not everyone has our level of mental health, familiarity and comfort with the medical system, understanding of the dangers of medical procedures, etc. This woman is most likely mentally ill, and that is unfortunate. Her mental illness may have led her to make a decision that had tragic consequences.

But be that as it may, the much bigger issue here is the principle of autonomy of one's person. The right to privacy in medical decisions, free from interference from the state. Quite simply, a person's body is their own, and they cannot be forced to undergo risky medical procedures in order for someone else to live. You may think she murdered her child, but you've got to go beyond that and see the larger issue.

IMO, you are too caught up in the death of the child to see the bigger picture. We all feel bad for that poor baby, it's a damn shame. But to arrest the mother for homicide? If that child had been born, and at one day of age the doctor's discovered that it would need immediate bone marrow transplants from the mother, would you say that her refusal to provide the bone marrow was murder?

I don't feel capable of explaining this any more clearly. I hope it makes sense to you, if not, then maybe someone else can help.

[Bunny]

73. Well for cryin' out loud, if I'd known she was tombstoned,

I wouldn't have spent 20 minutes on that last post!! :silly:

[Pithlet]

69. No,

anyone who is against forced surgery is heartless, and doesn't care about the dead kid. </sarcasm>

Please. None of us even know if the baby would have survived regardless. We don't know that the cause of death was because she refused a c-section. We don't even know that she actually refused one. The reports that she was only refusing because of a scar were unfounded, so who knows what else we are hearing that is just sensationalistic speculation by the press.

Disagreeing with your doctor about the course of action should never be cause to charge with murder.

[LeahMira]

75. You are misunderstanding...

My response was to Ductape Fatwa's post about possible disappointed adoptive parents.

I have been involved with adoptee rights for a while... sometimes more than others depending on my other commitments. In that involvement, I've learned that many young women feel pressured to relinquish their infants to prospective adoptive parents because the PAPs have contributed to pre-natal care or expenses. IOW, the young woman feels that although she would very much like to raise her child herself, if she refuses to turn it over to the PAPs she will have to return the money she's received from them. This is money that she would otherwise use to care for herself and her infant. Realizing that she can't do both, she feels there is no choice but to relinquish the infant.

This is wrong, and it's also not legal to deliberately withhold the facts about her rights to a mother. Here's a website that talks candidly about this particular abuse. http://www.openadoption.org/bbetzen/parent.htm#rights

That is the point I was making, and I'm sorry if you took it the wrong way... or maybe I wasn't clear. If there was an adoption involved in this case (which I'm not sure about although it's been mentioned), then my point is that even though plans have been made, no young woman is beholden to anyone else to follow through on those plans when it comes to her own infant. By extension, no young woman is required to have a C-section in order to ensure that PAPs get the healthy infant they hope to get... no matter how much money they had paid her.

[Az]

16. She supposedly suffers from Authority Oppositional Personality

She has been hospitalized before for this disorder. Not a well person.

[DyedNTheWoolDemocrat]

24. What the hell is Authority Oppositional Personality???

I've truly never heard of this disorder?

[FlaGranny]

38. Actually "oppositional defiant disorder."

snip - -
"Oppositional defiant disorder is a recurring pattern of negative, hostile, disobedient, and defiant behavior in a child or adolescent, lasting for at least six months without serious violation of the basic rights of others."

snip - -
"Later in life, oppositional defiant disorder can develop into passive aggressive personality disorder or antisocial personality disorder."

http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/oppositional_defiant_disorder.html

[veganwitch]

39. its in "the book"

i cant remember what the name is but its the authority for all mental illnesses.

it essentially is when a person suffers from a severe disability to trust or follow advice or directions given by those in perceived authority.

shes also diagnosed as bi-polar.

[MountainLaurel]

43. The book=DSM-IV-TR

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Text Revision)

For future reference and all that. B-)

[Bunny]

44. DSM-IV, I believe is what the book is called.

[DyedNTheWoolDemocrat]

46. Oh great. And this is the case

we want to make an example of for pro choice.:eyes:

This just has bad news written all over it.

Look, I'll go to bat for this woman as mentally ill.

But I won't go to bat for the mentally ill getting a free pass to murder children in the name of pro-choice.

And I am PRO-CHOICE!

This is such a frustrating case for me.

There is every reason this baby should be alive. And the reason I started this thread is because I heard a snip in the news that she was trying to sell the one that lived!

This is too much for me. "sigh"

This does not seem like a reasonable woman to me.

This does not seem like a reasonable situation to me!

[kiahzero]

48. This has nothing to do with abortion

So stop with that canard. This is an issue of state-mandated surgery.

[Az]

49. We can deny it all we want

But we have to realize this one is gonna get thrown in our face on the abortion issue. As long as we do not face the moral questions behind abortion we are going to have to tiptoe around such issues. We are leaving the moral high ground to the antichoice crowd. We need to look at this issue deeply and personally and figure out what it is we are defending. If we cannot beat them on the morallity issue as well as the woman's rights issue they are going to hound us till they win and take away our rights.

[veganwitch]

59. there is no moral issue at stake here

we either choose that you can strap people down and perform any major surgery on them that you want without their consent, or not.

or we can choose to start throwing pregnant women in jail for: not taking her prenatal vitamins everyday, having a cigarette while pregnant or just being around cigarette smoke, eating a bag of potato chips instead of a piece of fruit, having caffienated coffee or soda, not gaining enough or too much weight, continuing to work, wearing high heels, not sleeping on their left side,... or not.

or we can start investigating every premature, postmature, stillborn, birth defect, case of jaudice, gbs, SIDS for anything that could possibly "prove" that the mother was at fault, or not.

edit: and we start sterilising all people with diagnosed mental problems, political views outside the norm, certain religious tendancies, objectional skin, hair, eye colour...

[LeahMira]

76. Exactly!

we either choose that you can strap people down and perform any major surgery on them that you
want without their consent, or not.

or we can choose to start throwing pregnant women in jail for: not taking her prenatal vitamins
everyday, having a cigarette while pregnant or just being around cigarette smoke, eating a bag of
potato chips instead of a piece of fruit, having caffienated coffee or soda, not gaining enough or too
much weight, continuing to work, wearing high heels, not sleeping on their left side,... or not.


You tell 'em, lady!

[Bridget Burke]

50. Sir, you're the one linking this case to "pro-choice"

And where's the link to the news you heard that she was trying to sell the one who lived?

This is truly an unfortunate case, but a murder charge is not the best response.

And where's the father? Why isn't he rushing forward to claim the remaining child? Why wasn't he with the mother while she was making her decision?

[BiggJawn]

54. Stop with the "pro-choice" argument. that has been explained to you.

I will agree with you on ONE point:
"This does not seem like a reasonable situation to me!"

You're right, it is not. It is Government Intrusion into Private Lives gone WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

The question here is: Does the Government have the RIGHT to FORCE an adult to undergo a medical procedure against their will for WHATEVER reason?
I say NO!
Would it be anymore palatable if she was a member of some Fundy Cult that eschews surgical intervention of any kind? then we could say "Oh, well, Freedom of Religion, even John Ashcroft would uphold that, God's Will and all..."

[LeahMira]

56. And if the woman had died?

This does not seem like a reasonable woman to me.
This does not seem like a reasonable situation to me!

OK. If this woman is mentally ill, then someone should have appointed a guardian of some sort to protect her rights. There were nine months for people to have figured out what to do about that case. If she is not so mentally ill that she is incapable of making decisions for herself, then she has a perfect right to refuse any particular treatment.

You might not approve of her decision, but she has the right to make a wrong decision.

There are some men and women who have cancer, for instance, and elect not to have surgery. Perhaps they prefer to try a non-invasive therapy, or perhaps they choose some alternative medicine program to deal with their cancer. That is their choice, and if the choice turns out to have been wrong, they deal with the consequences.

We can certainly try to persuade, but we cannot force anyone to make what we consider to be the "right" choice.

Wonder how people would feel if the choice they insisted upon wound up costing the women her life. Sure, a C-section is relatively safe, but doctors will tell you that a patient's attitude has a whole lot to do with how that patient does with any procedure.

There are no guarantees in life.

I would think that a hospital ethics panel would want to take a close look at the case, but the very idea that this woman is facing charges is beyond belief!

[DyedNTheWoolDemocrat]

60. As a PRO-CHOICE Woman who has delivered children ....

I am asking what are the rights of this viable child? If the mentally ill woman is entitled to a guardian to look out for her rights, is not the near term child entitled to the same.

Look, within a day or two difference we are talking about the difference between a born and an unborn child. This child would have lived outside the mother weeks before she decided to finally go to a fucking hospital and agree to expel it.

Yes, I guess she technically had a right to kill this baby according to all the refuse surgery scenarios presented here.

I just gotta wonder about how right this was though. I sure don't support this. If there is not a law against the mentally ill killing a baby out of ignorance then there should be.

Why isn't anyone mourning the death of this baby that didn't have to die and should not have??

[veganwitch]

62. there is no guarantee that the child would have lived anyway

even if they did perform the c-section back in christmas. a premature multiple (usually small anyway) with a weak heartbeat would have had a hell of a time in the NICU.

if it died then, could we charge the nurses, doctors, hospital etc. with murder?

[kimchi]

67. You think she deliberately killed this child?

You keep using the word "murder". She didn't murder the child; she refused surgery. Here's a moral dilemna for you: how about it a woman chose to have a homebirth and the baby died. Is that murder? Is there any way you can prove that the baby would have lived in a hospital? Again...NO ONE KNOWS whether this child would have lived if she had a C-section. We know that the odds were better--but you cannot prove a speculation.

Besides, if the doctors were concerned before birth, knowing her mental problems, they should have gone to the authorities then. They were the "experts" who are supposed to have health in mind at all times. It seems they became concerned only after the baby died.

[oldcoot]

70. You do not need to support this woman

but you do need to support this case. Doctors and nurses are not gods. They are human and make mistakes just like everyone else. Moreover, medical knowledge changes over time. Did you know that doctors once advised women to give their babies formula because they did not believe that breast milk was nutritious enough for the babies? Obviously, the medical experts do not have all the answers.

We must be think about how much power we give doctors over our lives. If Rowland is convicted and the courts uphold her conviction, than this case will establish a very dangerous precedent for all pregnant mothers. What stopping your doctor from going to the police to have you arrested for child endangerment if you decide you would rather give birth at home with a midwife?

[DuctapeFatwa]

72. If she had mental/emotional problems, and it appears she may have

I am having a hard time understanding why mental health professionals were not consulted.

There is a lot we don't know about this lady. I have read reports that she has a history of mental health problems, she claims to have had C-sections before, one news report said that she had come to Salt Lake City with the intention of having her babies and giving them up for adoption because she could not care for them.

And nowhere nobody saw any red flags go off.

If all of the above is true, previous C-sections, can't care for the babies, history of mental problems, it is hard to understand why no one suggested that she terminate the pregnancy months ago.

[veganwitch]

61. which must mean that its a total lie

made up by her attorney to get this infanticidal woman off the hook!

ive never been to china, does that mean it doesnt exist?

[Kazak]

32. This case could set a very bad precedent.

Women should most definitely have the CHOICE to refuse medical treatment.

Birth is not a new thing.

[struggle4progress]

64. Silly wedge issue debate ...

I think that there is a very long tradition in this country that murder charges cannot be filed for death before birth (on that grounds that prior to a live-birth no one can predict with certainty what the outcome would have been). Shall we begin charging parents with murder whenever their children die before reaching voting age?

Headline media accounts of a woman's medical history are unlikely to provide adequate information to conduct any sensible ethical discussion of her alleged decision or behavior, even if such discussion were useful. Surely there is a principle that medical decisions are not imposed upon competent individuals?

While I really have some emotional sympathy with the moral view expressed by the original poster, I wonder what purpose is actually served by demonizing the poor woman under discussion and find such demonization distasteful.

<edit: omitted word inserted>

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

77. If it were about money she would have had the cesearean

I mean she had $10,000 worth of babies in her if the one is going for 5K.

[DyedNTheWool]

79. Oh really?

She was trying to sell the dead one for $5000 to make bail for killing it.

Only a sleazy lawyer could or would justify defending a notion this sick.

I’m not saying I don’t have any capacity for this obviously sick woman.

What I am asking for is some capacity from pro-choice people, LIKE MYSELF, for this baby.

Being pro-choice does not have to mean that one must go to such lengths as to defend murder, even if the cause is diminished capacity.

This baby has just as much of a right to a defense as the woman does.

Jeezus fucking God. I am pro-choice and have never before taken a position against a woman’s rights in something like this. But this is too much to bear. I’ll be damned if diminished capacity or mental illness can override the rights of a viable human being.